Laxman Rao Venepally V. Income Tax Officer, WARD 15(1) and The Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Ap- And Ts and The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

WP/3864/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Laxman Rao Venepally, the petitioner, challenging the assessment order and notices issued by the Income Tax Department under various sections of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the reassessment proceedings were initiated under the unamended provisions of the Act, which is not sustainable. The respondents included the Income Tax Officer, the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, and the Assessment Unit of the National Faceless Assessment Centre. The court's decision referenced a previous judgment where similar jurisdictional issues were addressed, leading to the quashing of the notices and orders in that case as well.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 804990 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, Ashi.sh Agarutal vs. Revenue, Adhish Agarutal vs. Revenue
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 151 CPC
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: MANMOHAN DUNDU
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Faceless assessment; Jurisdictional issue; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 148A; 1448

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITIO N NO: 3864 OF 2024 Between: Laxman Rao Venepally, '1 1-35 Narapally, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy-500039' Telangana ...PETITIONER AND 1 lncome Tax Officer, WARD 15(1), I T Tower, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004 The Principal Chief Commissioner Of lncome Tax Ap- And Ts, 1Oth Floor, C- Block, l.T. Towers, '10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004 .. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Riiessment Centre, Del6i, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4O1,2nd Floor, E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 10003 ...RESPONDENTS 2 3 Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the Assessment order dt. 11.O1 .2024 passed by the respondent u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 1448 of the lncome-tax Act for A.Y. 2015-16 vide DIN No.|TBA/AST/St 1 47 12023-2411 0596091 46(1 ), which is passed as a consequence order passed u/s 14BA(d) dt.o7lo4l2022vide DIN No. ITBA/ASTIF|14&A|2O22- 2311042611808(1)and the consequential notice u/s 'l48 dt. 0710412022 vide DIN No. ITBA/ASTl]ll48 1t2O22-23,t1042613209(1), for A.Y. 2015-16, issued by the JAO('l st respondent) instead of FAO(3rd respondent), as void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Assessment Order dt- 1110112024 passed by the 3rd respondent uls 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s- 1448 of the lncome-tax Act for A.Y. 2015-16 vide DIN No. ITBA/ASTI S1147 t2o23-2411059609146(1 ). Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MANMOHAN DUNDU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J.V.PRASAD, (SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUI{ARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.3864 OF 2o24 ORDER:(per Ho n'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: \"to issue an oppropiate u.tit order or direction more particwlarlg one in the nature of order or direction more particularlg one in the nature of order or direction more particularlg one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaing the Assessment Order dt 11 01 2024 po-ssed bg the respondent u/s 147 r w s 144 r u.t s 1448 of the Income, tox Act for A.Y.2015-16 uide DIN No.ITBA / ASr / S / 147 / 202324 / 1059609146(1) tuhich is passed as a consequence order passed u/s 148Ad Cit 07/04/2022 uide DIN No ITBA/AST/F/148A/202223/1O426118081anci the con-seEtentiaL notice u/s 148 dt O7/O4/2O22 uide DIN No ITBA/AST/S/ 148 1/202223 / 10426132091 for A Y 2O1516 bsued by the JAOLSI respondent instead of FAO3rd respondent o.s uoid illegal and controry to the provisions of Income tax Act and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice\". 2. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act which came into effect from 01.O4.2021, the respondents, while proceeding under 2 PSI<,J & NTR,J W.P.No.3864 o.f 2024 Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section 148A and provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner. 3. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In support of his contention, he relied upon the recent judgment rendered by this very Bench in WP.No.259O3 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.09.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department does not dispute that the said objection was decided in the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. However, he further contended that apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Department is concerned, this Bench, while 3 PSI(,J d6 i rTR,J W.P.No.3864 oJ 2O24 disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: \"37. The preliminary objection raised bg tLE petitioner is sustained and all these wnt petitions stands allouted on this uery jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quasled on the point of jurisdiction, u)e are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised bg tle petitioner uhich stands reserued to be raised and contended in an appro priote pro ce eding s. \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashi.sh Agarutal, supra, as a one-time measure exerci,sing the pouLers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court ollowing the petitions only on the procedural Jlaw, the right conferred on the Reuenue utould rematn reserued to proceed further if theg so utant from the stage of th-e order of the Supreme Court in tlrc case of Adhish Agarutal, supra.\" 6. In view of the sarne, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been drawn in accordance with the amended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 4 a) PSK,J & MTR,J W.P.No.3864 of 2O24 7. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the rights of the parties would stald reserved as is envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs' Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. I //TRUE COPY// SD/- G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ..a) / .. -/ g SECT1ON OFFICER 1. lncome Tax Officer, WARD 15(1), I T Tower, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner Of lncome Tax Ap And Ts. 1Oth Floor, C- Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Depa(ment, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4O1 , 2nd Floor, E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 10003 4. One CC to SRI MANMOHAN DUNDU, Advocate lOPUCl 5. One CC to SRI J.V.PRASAD, (SC FOR INCOIVE TAX) [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies. BSK GJP _hr- To, HIGH COURT DATED:1410212024 ORDER WP.No.3864 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1t s "